Fun With An Elbow To The Throat ...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Watch White #30's head snap back (I don't believe that she's acting). Yes, it could be due to an elbow into her upper chest, and yes, we don't get a good look at the actual point contact because of the angle of the video (White #30's right arm is in the way), but if it looks like an elbow to the throat, swims like an elbow to the throat, and quacks like an elbow to the throat, then it probably could be an elbow to the throat (not certain, but I think that is was).

For sake of argument, if, indeed, it really was an actual elbow to the throat, should we, at least, consider an intentional foul?

And if it's actually not an elbow to the throat, then my point is moot.

You are missing the point as usual. I did not that there was absolutely no contact with the opponent. I am saying that this should have been a foul long before this action at the end. And just because you make contact with the head and neck area, does not constitution under the rules an intentional foul automatically. If that was the case many fouls on a shooter to the basket would result in an intentional foul, which I never hear hardly anyone debate when the contact is slight and part of normal basketball action. So if you want to call that mess, fine. I do not work for IAABO so again I do not care what they suggest. But the NCAA talks about specific arm movement that is considered illegal by interpretation and we have no such standard or discussion at the NF level. If they did, we might have a foul before this even progressed. In Men's interpretation, the straight arm and contact are stated to be a foul alone. So that would stop everything else. Not about her faking anything, just not what the rule currently says should be an intentional foul.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not that there was absolutely no contact with the opponent. I am saying that this should have been a foul long before this action at the end. And just because you make contact with the head and neck area, does not constitution under the rules an intentional foul automatically.

Never said that you believed that there was no contact, just that you believed (possibly correct) that the was no contact between a moving elbow and her throat.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is not a blow to the head or neck.

Sure, lots of chances to call a foul here, but none were called. I'm just referring to the contact that caused her head to snap back (no whistle in the video).

Yes, the current NFHS rulebbok (and casebook) doesn't specifically (excessive contact above the shoulder situations) call for an intentional foul here (unless one deems it excessive contact), but there was a Point of Emphasis in 2012-13 that told us specifically what to do with moving elbows causing contact above the shoulders.

Did the NFHS only want these "guidelines" enforced for that one year? I doubt it.

How long did they expect these "guidelines" to be enforced? Two years? Five years? More? Probably until there's a new relevant or pertinent rule, or a new relevant or pertinent interpretation, or a new relevant or pertinent Point of Emphasis. Or relevant or pertinent rules (or interpretations) changed to make these "guidelines" null and void.

Does the NFHS still want high school officials to enforce these "guidelines"? Not sure, but leaning yes.

How are officials with less than eight years of experience supposed to know about these "guidelines"? Experienced trainers (but that's a weak answer, the NFHS dropped the ball on this one).

Have any relevant or pertinent rules (or interpretations) changed over the years to make these "guidelines" null and void? I don't believe so.

Has the NFHS decided that it no longer wants (or needs) to reduce concussions and decrease excessive contact above the shoulder situations? I doubt it.

Does the NCAA do a better job adjudicating excessive contact above the shoulder situations? I've heard yes, but I don't "work" for the NCAA and I like to wait until NCAA interpretations "officially" trickle down to the high school level (as they often do) and want to avoid jumping the gun.

Stupid NFHS.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sure, lots of chances to call a foul here, but none were called. I'm just referring to the contact that caused her head to snap back.

Yes, the rulebbok doesn't specifically (head and neck) call for an intentional foul here (unless one deems it excessive contact), but there was a Point of Emphasis in 2012-13 that told us specifically what to do with moving elbows causing contact above the shoulders.

Did they only want these "guidelines" enforced for that one year? I doubt it.

Does the NFHS still want high school officials to enforce these "guidelines"? Not sure, but leaning yes.

How long did they expect these "guidelines" to be enforced? Two years? Five years? More? Probably until there's a new relevant or pertinent rule, or a new relevant or pertinent interpretation, or a new relevant or pertinent Point of Emphasis.

Again if you wanted the rules to stay, then use it in all your rulebooks and casebook. And it would help if you gave examples like in this year when that would apply to help take away ambiguousness. They did not do that so we have people like yourself still talking about the POE over 8 years ago, but did not mention the language in the POE about intentional fouls this year.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Have any relevant or pertinent rules changed over the years to make these "guidelines" null and void? I don't believe so.

It was not a rules change. It was a point of emphasis that did not cover the actual language of the rule (kind of like what they did in the past with other POEs). So if POEs are to stand as law like a court case, then put those somewhere we can reference them. There are interpretations in the S&I books that sometimes do not match other places, but at least we can point to those interpretations.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Has the NFHS decided that it no longer wants (or needs) to reduce concussions and decrease excessive contact above the shoulder situations? I doubt it.

Stupid NFHS.

All I know is every level of sports has modified their rules to allow for either judgment or even extra consideration to judgment as to when or if at all contact of a certain kind is considered illegal. They did so in football at the NF level. They even told us in football when you have "incidental" or contact that is not to be ruled illegal with the head and neck area. The NCAA create an entire rule to deal with not penalizing all contact with the head and neck area if certain actions are met. So I have no idea what the NF intends, but it is silly to put something in a POE and never mention it again. Have you seen it mentioned in Referee Magazine? Have you seen it mentioned in the IAABO "You Make the Call" videos (I have every one of those copies they have made) in the last several years? I have not heard anyone suggests that all contact with the head and neck area is special or needs to be something called at more than a common foul, but people on sites like this tell us what should be intended but the rules committee meets multiple times a year. They even have a whole website that could address these things as well as an online magazine to address these things. But to this day, nothing.

You can consider whatever you wish in the video, but this looks like a normal ward off as I suggested, and just call the team control foul and move on. I would love more direction, but they have not given any. So here we are, just a couple of random people in the bigger picture debating something that could be resolved by the people in the actual positions of influence. Even if you tell me what it should be, no one in my state or associations are going to give a damn. That is the problem with his discussion. I cannot say, "Billy Mac on the Officiating discussion board said this should be an intentional foul....." I would get "Who???"

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again if you wanted the rules to stay, then use it in all your rulebooks and casebook ... but did not mention the language in the POE about intentional fouls this year ... It was not a rules change. It was a point of emphasis that did not cover the actual language of the rule ... So if POEs are to stand as law like a court case, then put those somewhere we can reference them. I have no idea what the NF intends, but it is silly to put something in a POE and never mention it again ...I would love more direction, but they have not given any ...

Agree 100%. I couldn't have said it better myself.

While I can't criticize you for deciding that the eight year old Point of Emphasis is null and void, please don't criticize me for be believing that it's still in force. We all know who to criticize. The stupid NFHS.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree 100%. I couldn't have said it better myself.

While I can't criticize you for deciding that the eight year old Point of Emphasis is null and void, please don't criticize me for be believing that it's still in force. We all know who to criticize. The stupid NFHS.

I did not say anything about this being null and void, I said that they could have clarified just this year with situations that are not being considered intentional fouls. Again, Intentional Foul is a POE this year, and nothing about contact to the head and neck area in that statement. I will also consider calling an elbow play as an intentional foul as I always have, but just because there is contact does not mean it rises to that level. This play was not a blow, this was using the arm to push off and it got a little high. I am comfortable with my position on this as I would be at the other levels that suggest that this would not likely be anything but a common or team control foul as well. I am a little tired of having this debate, but I think this is caused by the not addressing this by the NF, not necessarily individuals.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am a little tired of having this debate, but I think this is caused by the not addressing this by the NF, not necessarily individuals.

Agree.

As my Mom used to say, "I'm sick and tired ..." (referring to the poor behavior of me and my brother).

She would also say, "You kids are going to send me to Middletown".

Middletown, Connecticut is the location of the Connecticut State Psychiatric Hospital.

[BillyMac]

This doesn't really add anything substantial to the debate, but I did find several references (none sourced to the NFHS) online to a 2013-14 NFHS clarification of this issue.

I actually don't remember this NFHS clarification, can't find the original NFHS source, but (if true) it does bring the issue one year closer to the present (but it's still ancient history at seven years old).

Move forward to 2013-14 where NFHS further clarified in a Point of Emphasis the two varieties of this contact. Rule an intentional Foul when contact above the shoulders is not the result of excessively swinging the elbows – but in past seasons might have been ruled a common player control foul. Rule a flagrant Foul when contact above the shoulders is the result of excessively swinging the elbows. Remember, in scholastic contests, when a player “excessively swings” their elbows, at a minimum, a violation should be ruled even if no contact is made. If the contact is the result of excessive swinging prior to the official stopping play (for a violation) then a flagrant foul may be ruled – unless the contact is judged to be “slight of nature.” Penalizing rebounders for contacting defenders with their elbows, when pivoting to release an outlet pass should be at a minimum be ruled intentional – with the possibility of being flagrant, based on the “excessive nature” of the swinging.

Ohio Valley Board Of Approved Basketball Officials, Dec 13, 2019 (not a NFHS source): https://www.ovboardbasketballofficia...-the-shoulders. Accompanying video: https://video.wixstatic.com/video/e4...p/mp4/file.mp4

Sixty Seconds On Officiating (followup to 2014 post), 2019 (not a NFHS source): https://ref60.com/2019/01/my-elbow-cant-do-that/

Sixty Seconds On Officiating, 2014 (not a NFHS source): https://ref60.com/2014/11/elbow-contact-above-shoulder/

And I've already posted this "flawed" IAABO International play commentary, January 20, 2021 (not a NFHS source, no mention of more recent clarification): https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1042125

Also, I found two illustrations from the original NFHS 2012-13 Point of Emphasis:





Why has the NFHS "left us hanging"?

If the POE "guidelines" no longer apply, retract them.

If they do apply, put them in the current rulebook, or casebook, or at the minimum, emphasize it again.

Fish, or cut bait.

Stupid NFHS.

Or, am I stupid for believing that these POE "guidelines" still apply in high school basketball ؟ (It's a rhetorical question, note the reverse question mark, not intended to be answered.)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Have you seen it mentioned in the IAABO "You Make the Call" videos (I have every one of those copies they have made) in the last several years?

Yes. January 20, 2021.

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only: Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...2FIE%2Bg%3D%3D

IAABO International Play Commentary: This is an intentional foul. If a player swings elbows excessively, (faster than the rest of the player’s torso), and contacts an opponent, it is at a minimum an intentional foul. If the contact is severe or the player ‘measures up’ the opponent, it is flagrant. (2012-13 POE) In this play, Red #35 swings her elbows in at a pace that exceeds the speed of the torso. This should be ruled an intentional personal foul. Officials only have rules support to rule this incidental contact or a common foul (player control foul) if the player's elbow was stationary when the contact occurred. A stationary elbow is defined as an elbow that is not moving faster than the rest of the player’s torso. (2012-13 POE)

However, there are some flaws in this commentary. Why did the IAABO International "Gang of Four" believe that stationary is the same as moving but not excessively moving? I figure we have three choices: not moving (stationary), moving but not excessively moving, and excessively moving.



https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1041036

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... the current NFHS rulebbok (and casebook) doesn't specifically (excessive contact above the shoulder situations) call for an intentional foul here (unless one deems it excessive contact), but there was a Point of Emphasis in 2012-13 that told us specifically what to do with moving elbows causing contact above the shoulders...

That was then, this is now:

4.19.3 SITUATION F: After a rebound, A1, while holding the ball, pivots and A1’s elbow contacts B1 above the shoulders. A1's elbow is violently and excessively swung at a speed in excess of the player’s torso. RULING: If the contact is violent or excessive, a flagrant foul shall be called. (4-27, 4-19-2, 4-19-3, 4-19-4)

9.13.1 SITUATION B: A1 is trapped in the corner by B1 and B2, who are in legal guarding position. In an attempt to create space, A1 rapidly swings arms/elbows while using the shoulders as pivots (a) without making contact; (b) making contact with an opponent above the shoulders and elbows are moving faster than the body. RULING: In (a), A1 excessively swinging arms/elbows without contacting the opponent is a violation. Team B is awarded a designated spot throw-in nearest the violation. In (b), this is considered an intentional foul. (9-13-1)

9.13.2 SITUATION: A5 catches the ball on a rebound, “chins” the ball and then turns (with the elbow at the same speed as the body) to make an outlet pass with the elbow leading the way. Prior to releasing the ball, A1’s elbow contacts B5 above the shoulders. RULING: This may be ruled incidental contact or a player control foul.